Dismissed

J. S. J. Cable Network v. Hathway Cable and Datacom Private Limited

TDSAT18 Jan 2006BROADCASTING PETITION/40/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Apellate Tribunal directed petitioner to negotiate Subscriber Agreement with second respondent and obtain BESCOM authorization and lay cable before receiving signals, dismissing claims against other respondents.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner and 2nd respondent directed to negotiate Subscriber Agreement within two weeks; other respondents discharged from array.

J. S. J. Cable Network vs Hathway Cable and Datacom Private… — Consumer Protection | TDSAT (2006)

¶1

TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

¶2

6/7/2018

¶3

TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI

¶4

TH DATED 1 8 JANUARY, 2006

¶5

PETITION No.40(C) OF 2004 (M.A.No.102 of 2005)

¶6

M/S J.S.J.Cable Network …Petitioner

¶7

¶8

In Cable Indusind Media Communication Limited & Ors. …Respondents

¶9

BEFORE:

¶10

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. SANTOSH HEGDE,

¶11

CHAIRPERSON

¶12

MR. VINOD VAISH, MEMBER LT.GEN.D.P.SEHGAL(RETD.),MEMBER

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.Priyabrat Tripathy,Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr.Vibhav Srivastava for Mr.Sunil Agarwal,,Advocates For Respondent No.6 – Atria Convergence & : Mr.Ashok Kumar Upadhyay, Technology Private Limited Mr.Vikas R., Advocates

¶14

ORDER

¶15

In this petition, the petitioner has sought for signals from respondent nos.1-6 of same channels. We have directed the petitioner on the last date of hearing that he must choose any one of the respondents as a MSO to supply signals to him and he cannot simultaneously ask for signals of the same channels from all the respondents. Today on instructions from his client, learned counsel for the petitioner says that the petitioner would seek signals from the second respondent.

¶16

Earlier, in this petition we had directed that since the petitioner will have to lay its own cable for seeking signals from the second respondent it is necessary that he obtains permission from the BESCOM authorities which learned counsel for the petitioner now submits he has obtained, but this is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents saying that that is not the final authorization.

¶17

file:///E:/all%20judgement%20year%20wise/judgement%202006/petition%20No.40(C)%20of2004.htm

¶18

1/2

¶19

TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

¶20

6/7/2018

¶21

To avoid further delay, we direct the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent to negotiate the terms of Subscriber Agreement and sign the same within two weeks. However, this Agreement will come into force only after the petitioner obtains the final authorization from BESCOM and lays the cable to the nearest point from where it could obtain signals from the 2^nd Respondent. It is only on such agreement being signed and steps being taken, as referred to hereinabove, the 2^nd Respondent is obligated to give signals on terms agreed to in the Agreement referred to hereinabove.

¶22

Since we have granted the relief prayed for by the Petitioner by directing the 2^nd Respondent to give signals on terms and conditions mentioned hereinabove, we do not think the Petitioner could seek relief from others. Hence, we discharge the said Respondents from the array of parties.

¶23

Before concluding, however, we think it necessary to note that the 6^th Respondent has filed a reply wherein it has taken a stand in regard to certain business conditions adopted by it. We prima facie think that these conditions are contrary to the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection Regulation 2004 framed by the TRAI. However, since no prayer is sought for in regard to validity of these conditions, we will not go into this question.

¶24

Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶25

…………………..J (N. Santosh Hegde) Chairperson

¶26

………………. (Vinod Vaish) Member

¶27

………………. (D.P.Sehgal) Member

¶28

file:///E:/all%20judgement%20year%20wise/judgement%202006/petition%20No.40(C)%20of2004.htm

¶29

2/2

J. S. J. Cable Network v. Hathway Cable and Datacom Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J. S. J. Cable Network v. Hathway Cable and Datacom Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hotel Association of India vs Set Discovery Pvt. Ltd.

Sea Tv Network Ltd. vs Star India Pvt. Ltd.

Star India Pvt. Ltd. vs Indusind Media & Communications Ltd.

Operators Network Private Lomited vs Star India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

R. R. Enterprises vs Set Discovery Private Limited

Sumit Cable Network vs Set Discovery Pvt. Ltd.

Sumit Cable Network vs Set Discovery Pvt. Ltd.

Perfect Cable Network vs Star India Pvt. Ltd.

Hotel Association of India vs Set Discovery Pvt. Ltd.

Chetna Communications vs Star India Pvt. Ltd.

Sumit Cable Network vs Set Discovery Pvt. Ltd.

Perfect Cable Network vs Star India Pvt. Ltd.

Rajdhani Communication Network Private Limited vs Set Discovery Private Limited